The article is really bad on multiple fronts.

First, it somehow thinks that Marxist-Leninism is the original communism, which is just silly. It is neither original nor official. It was just a strand of authoritarian, central-planning socialism which is largely rejected in the West and by current socialist movements and revolutions such as the Rojava Revolution and the EZLN.

Secondly, it misses the point by a mile. You can't ever earn enough money to make the world grener if you ruin the world while making money. Capitalist system has those who own means of productions, the capitalists, and their main goal is always to make more money and grow. A culture that has a arisen to compliment this need, consumerism, is what frives infinite growth within the finite world that is killing us.

Yes, some places should go richer and have more industries, but a lot od the world overoroduces by a huge margin, while at the same time running out of housing due to insane amount of landlord ownership over property.

There is no Green Capitalism. Not because they (the capitalists) don't want it (they don't), but because the system itslef relies on infinite growth, which inevitably leads to overexploitation of our common planet.

What a croc - never trust anything “left vs right” from the Cato institute. Cato has never seen a problem that capitalist billionaires could not solve and “communism” did not create.

Either way - capitalism does not care to solve climate change because we allowed the capitalists to externalise the costs. If we prices climate damage into the cost of goods - sure capitalism could perhaps be less than evil. But of course capitalism breed oligarchs and oligarchy and thus markets were deformed to benefit the oligarchs (and socialise risks while privatising profits).

The article keeps referring to "socialism" and then referring exclusively to communist societies, and so can safely be disregarded entirely if you are pursuing absolutely any form of democratic socialism.

Not the first time I've heard about this concept, and the more i look into the world the more I agree with it. Being green is kind of a luxury that not many people can afford, and the poorer people are the less they can afford green technology.

You should look a bit more into the world if you didn't notice how good capitalism is at making the poors poorer.

"Who We Are

HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute""/

Sounds about right. You're quoting a right wing rag from a 20 year policy analyst with no practical experience.

You want to know what poor people can't afford? Extinction.

And yet the United States with its unfettered capitalism has failed to be a world leader in environmentalism

That honour goes to Nordic and European social democracies

Sure you need to be sufficiently wealthy, but you also need to restrict capital so companies can not pollute, and have social policies to pay for the those solutions the market will not supply

This entire article misses the point entirely with what socialism is. Socialism is just about who owns the company. All the principles that apply to capitalism also mostly apply to socialism, except it doesn't pool money to the wealthy who are simply extracting value from people instead of their own skills.

Socialism can have wealthy people. Socialism does not mean state owned (that's communism and they're absolutely 100% not interchangeable like the article implies).

Communism could affect climate change because it's effectively a dictatorship on what companies can do. Socialism can affect climate change because it effectively isn't profit over humanity.

Capitalism is literally driving climate change the wrong direction. It's asinine to be like, "no, no, let's give it a bit more time."

Edit: this article is why folks attack many people on the right. It's straight up lying and deceiving the reader with misinformation.

Since capitalism is the best way to create wealth, humanity should stick with it.

Wealth, but also inequality. Socialism (and I mean Europe socialism, not Soviet Union communism) is also able to create wealth, and also distribute it better among people.